4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in İzmir.
5.  On 28 July 1997, at around 10 p.m., the applicant was on his way home when he saw a street fight and stopped to watch it. The police from Balçova police station arrived at the scene and arrested three or four adolescents who took part in the fight and the applicant.
6.  At the station, three police officers, one of whom was in civilian clothes, decided to hit the youngsters’ hands with a truncheon so as to teach them a lesson. When it was his turn, the applicant asked the police officers not to hit his hands as he had recently undergone surgery. Therefore, the police officers decided to subject him to falaka (beating of the soles of the feet). The applicant was also beaten up. Afterwards, he was released without any formalities. He was seventeen years old.
7.  The applicant hid the incident from his family but his feet were swollen and he had difficulty walking. The applicant’s father immediately took him to the Casualty department of Dokuz Eylül University Hospital for a medical examination on 29 July 1997, at around 11 p.m. According to the report drafted by Dr S.Y., the applicant had a blue-purple coloured ecchymosis of 2x3x2 cm on the sole of his left foot.
8.  The Government deny that the applicant was ever taken to Balçova police station or subjected to ill-treatment.
9.  On 30 July 1997 the applicant filed a petition with the İzmir public prosecutor’s office, gave a detailed description of the alleged ill-treatment and subsequent events and requested to be immediately transferred to the Forensic Medical Institute for a medical examination.
10.  On 30 July 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the İzmir Forensic Medical Institute who noted sensitivity and light reddish and purplish ecchymosis on the soles of his feet. The doctor concluded that the applicant had sustained soft tissue trauma. He considered that the injuries, which would heal in fifteen days, rendered the applicant unfit for work for three days.
11.  On the same day the applicant applied to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey for treatment. He was examined by a general surgeon and an orthopaedist, both of whom noted, inter alia, ecchymosis, oedema and sensitivity on the applicant’s feet. The next day, on 31 July 1997, the applicant saw a psychiatrist who considered that he was suffering from minimal anxiety. No drugs were prescribed.
12.  On 18 August 1997 the applicant lodged an official complaint with the İzmir public prosecutor’s office and requested the prosecution of the impugned police officers for having committed the offence of torture, in breach of, inter alia, Article 3 of the Convention. In his petition the applicant repeated the description of the events and the alleged ill-treatment.
13.  On 22 September 1997 the prosecutor questioned the applicant and his father. The applicant repeated his allegations.
14.  On 13 January 1998 the applicant was able to identify from photographs Mr B.Y. and Mr M.Y. as two of the three police officers who had ill‑treated him on 28 July 1997.
15.  On the same day, the prosecutor gave a decision of incompetence ratione materiae and transferred the investigation file to the İzmir Governor’s Office.
16.  On 18 and 27 February 1998 Mr L.B., in his capacity as investigator (muhakkik), heard the applicant and his father. They both repeated their allegations.
17.  On 20 March 1998 Mr L.B. questioned the accused police officers, who denied the allegations against them.
18.  Between 26 June 1998 and 21 July 1998, Mr L.B. took statements from two police officers on duty that day and from Mr I.B., who was held in custody on the day of the incident. They all submitted that the applicant had not been brought to the police station that day. In particular, one of the police officers affirmed that the name of whoever was brought to the station was noted in a book, and his/her identity was checked. However, the applicant’s name was not in the book.
19.  On 28 May 1998 the applicant identified the above mentioned police officers in the course of an identification procedure.
20.  On 13 August 1998, the Balçova District Administrative Council decided that, in the absence of evidence proving the allegations, there was no need to open an investigation with a view to prosecuting the accused police officers. A doctor, Mr S.C., also sat on the Council and took part in this decision. The applicant objected to this decision.
21.  On 25 November 1998 the İzmir Regional Administrative Court overruled the decision of the Balçova District Administrative Council and decided that the accused police officers should be prosecuted under Article 245 of the Criminal Code.
22.  On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings against the accused police officers commenced before the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance.
23.  On 7 June 1999 the court heard evidence from the applicant and his father. They reiterated their previous submissions. The accused were absent. The court scheduled the next hearing for 18 October 1999.
24.  On 8 July 1999 judge B.Ö. requested to withdraw from the case on the ground, inter alia, that there was a feud between the family of one of the defendants and his own. The request was accepted by the İzmir Assize Court on 14 July 1999.
25.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant and his father applied to various authorities to complain that they were being harassed. A disciplinary investigation by the Provincial Police Disciplinary Commission was discontinued when they withdrew their complaint.
26.  On 22 December 2000 the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance decided that the proceedings against the accused police officers should be suspended and subsequently discontinued if no offence of the same or a more serious kind was committed by the offenders within a five-year period. The applicant’s objection to this decision, notably as regards the qualification of the act in question, was dismissed on 19 July 2002.
27.  On 11 September 2006 the İzmir Assize Court, noting that the five‑year period had expired and that the accused had not committed another crime during this time, decided to drop the criminal proceedings against them.
28.  In the meantime, upon the applicant’s complaint, disciplinary investigations were instigated against Dr S.C., the doctor who had sat on the Balçova District Administrative Council, and the accused police officers.
29.  On 20 October 1998 the Provincial Police Disciplinary Commission, after having examined the case file, decided that the accused police officers had ill-treated the applicant. The Commission ordered their suspension from duty for four months.
30.  On 13 September 1999 the İzmir Chamber of Medicine held that Dr S.C. had acted contrary to Article 2 of the Medical Deontology Statute and gave him a warning. This decision was upheld in December 1999 by the High Commission of the Turkish Medical Association.